Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:58:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant
> > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
> > used. Yay ?!
> I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
> in the copyright file...
> OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to
> actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL;
> it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...
Incorrect. I clarified this with the GDB documentation expert; for
some reason the license is in the Info file (you can find it with a
text editor) but deliberately does not show up in an Info browser.
Which makes fair sense; normally the license is in the source code,
not in the binary.